The programs I've been involved with did not have anything to do with
the FCC. Sounds like they have more technical competency than some
other agencies....and that's a good thing.
On 4/6/2020 4:40 PM, Eric Muehleisen wrote:
No persistence. We objected and they sent someone out almost
immediately. This was during CAFII. I assume RDOF will be the same.
I've yet to hear of anyone actually providing validation testing. I
know the FCC has a couple different methods of remote validation but I
haven't seen it personally. We only tested it as a proof of concept
prior to the auction. Just be aware that you might get a knock from
the FCC who want to test on your network.
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:31 PM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com
<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'm glad they came out and checked. You're probably a more
believable witness than some Internet customers are. How
persistent did you have to be to get someone to come out?
On 4/6/2020 4:25 PM, Eric Muehleisen wrote:
The FCC won't drive around and test themselves, but they will
follow you as you drive around and test. We disputed several
locations that had won CAF2 and the FCC sent out two contractors
to come out and verify our speeds/claims. We spent 2-3 hours with
them one morning testing in various locations. The FCC will also
test on network with a Sam Knows whitebox (UK based business).
Calix also has testing methods that report to FCC as well. We
haven't tested that method yet.
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 3:10 PM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com
<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:
The company owner/administrator talking to the government
either believes the incorrect assumptions or is wholly
committed to the lie. So they confidently report that
they're delivering 25 Meg like they're supposed to. Evidence
to the contrary is a fluke or an error. The FCC isn't going
to drive around and speedtest your customers. The source of
information saying you're not delivering 25meg is going to be
a disgruntled customer who is aware that you have grant
funding, knows what your requirements were, and knows which
agency to complain to. There will be very few of those, and
it's easy to defend yourself from one complainer by simply
saying /they're/ the crazy/wrong one.
There will be financial audits, and in some programs there
are /physical///audits to make sure you bought the things you
say you did and didn't buy yourself a Ferrari instead. I'm
sorry to say that people can and do get away with the
lie/wrongness about performance.
On 4/6/2020 3:42 PM, Dev wrote:
But seemingly, if everyone’s lying, won’t the FCC/etc. come
down hard in response? Example A: 477’s, where many I’ve
seen have a fabrication factor, sometimes a very high one.
On Apr 6, 2020, at 12:13 PM, Adam Moffett
<dmmoff...@gmail.com <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I've seen a number of grant funding proposals based on 25M
and 100M speeds.
In general what they do is lie. Or they're wrong.
First you use the capacity planning tool provided the
manufacturer and remember that you can populate the values
however you want to. Your prediction doesn't have to be
perfectly correct, it just has to be defensible if you're
questioned about it.
Also use an 8:1 oversubscription ratio and in your
narrative claim that this is "conservative". It /was /a
conservative value in the pre-Netflix world so this is
another one where they might truly believe it, or they
could be lying.
You can also play games with coverage maps. What's the
minimum MCS to get a subscriber at 25meg? Use that signal
level to predict coverage. Most of us will realize that at
that signal you can only have ONE person at 25meg, but
using that figure makes it a hell of a lot easier to show
coverage in the entire funding area.
Whether this is actually a lie, or whether they truly
believe this stuff is not always obvious to me. Some of
them I'm certain think it's true, and I think it's a case
where their engineering was informed by the equipment sales
channel. Others I think are just full of crap, but they
know what they can get away with.
I'm not advocating any of these "design choices", but I'm
telling you these are things people often do to make their
grant funding applications look defensibly acceptable. In
some cases I do believe the applicant is simply wrong.
They're an administrator or a business person and they're
just asking the wrong questions. Some of them could be
liars, but you'll note that each of these lies leaves the
person with the ability to point their finger at someone
else and say "well that guy told me this equipment could do
that."
In the case of NY State, they had an independent
engineering firm review the proposals for their technical
plausibility and apparently those guys would look at these
applications and not see any problem. I didn't quite
figure out why that was.....but I have some guesses.
My info comes from participating in application processes
and talking to other applicants about what they're doing.
-Adam
On 4/6/2020 2:27 PM, Dev wrote:
So if I understand we’ll have to provide 25/3 to ALL locations that
receive RDOF funding? If so, how would that happen without the 6GHz that isn’t
out yet and won’t be by the time this round funds?
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
